My dear Friends, I have something really important to share with you.

I just listened to a debate, entitled "Major reduction in carbon emissions are not worth the money", where a panel of distinguished speakers argued in favor or against devoting large sums of money to the prevention of global warming through funding research and development of alternative energy production and limiting or eliminating carbon emissions.

On the side in favor of the motion panelists argued that we should use our resources to solve compelling problems, such a poverty and lack of sanitation, before throwing money into expensive, speculative propositions such as prevention of global warming. On the other side, panelists made a case for the opposite view, that is, devoting all of our resources to climate research and management.

If I were some kind of ET listening in to this debate, with no personal history on this planet and nothing at stake in relation to its future, I might have believed that every panel member was concerned about the same thing, i.e. earthlings' long term best interest.

However, since I am not an ET, I couldn't help but to notice an underlying current of unspoken content , often referred to as "personal agendas", reverberating in the background of some members' rhetoric. Id' go as far as saying that this content came through louder than words, in many cases, to the point of obfuscating the message, at times, entirely.

To make my point clearer, I'll give you an example of what I mean.

One of the panel members, Ms. L. Hunter Lovins, president of Natural Capitalism Solutions, is passionately in favor of spending trillions of dollars to possibly offset future consequences of global warming, and she became so overheated about defending her side that, in a fit of contempt for her opponents, she couldn't think of a better way to attack their credibility than addressing them as "boys".

As a representative of the female gender, I was embarrassed and saddened by such blatant sexism (can you imagine what would happen if, in an Oxford style debate, a frustrated man called a panel of highly educated, respectable women "girls"? We wouldn't hear the end of it, would we? And yet, men are willing to let comments like this slide and for that, they deserve an acknowledgement).

But I will leave my indignation behind for now and return to my commentary.

Obviously, Ms. Lovins is not only rude. She is also ignorant.

If she had done a bit of reading beforehand, she would have found out that no one knows how climate works and those of us who have taken the time to actually check what the real scientists are saying about it (and by "real scientists" I mean those who are qualified to speak on this subject and are NOT on the payroll of some political celebrity PR campaign), have dismissed the whole thing long ago.

Why? Because there isn't one, scrawny, single chance that we could take into account all of the factors involved in regulating the earth's climate, even if we spent every penny we have in a futile attempt to do so.

Therefore, to buy into the skillfully packaged "global warming" media blitz, (guess who packaged it? That's right! A Bunch of Good People!), whose fabrications would have us believe humans can:

A) understand,

B) affect, and

C) predict the earth's climate,

is comparable to buying the idea that, if we really put our minds together, we can prevent continents from shifting, mountains from colliding and earthquakes from happening. And that is a dog-wagging tail.

True: we might develop a technology sophisticated enough to predict and maybe even prevent random planetary events that might cause a disaster. But to take this possibility and call it a certainty, about every event, every time, and then even have the nerve to ask for money in order to fund such technology...well, need I say it? That would be pure Bologna, with all due respect for my ancestors or, alternatively, it could be attributed to incipient dementia.

Easy enough to figure out, right?

Not so. This kind of unimaginable distortion is exactly what people are buying into, as if it were the truth.

How can it be? One asks oneself. How can thousands, no... millions, of college educated people swallow this lump of BS, believing they are feasting on Lasagne?

But let me get back to Ms. Hunter Lovins who, as one can gather, is currently considered one of the good guys, along with many celebrities whose endorsement this cause has secured for itself.

Ms. Lovins passionately denounces the "other side", the side of science, accusing her opponents of standing in the way of simple solutions, like turning off unneeded lights, then proceeds to explain why we should invest everything we have in developing clean energy technology.

However, towards the end of the program, when everyone is just trying to speak louder than their opponent, she looses her composure altogether and announces she is in favor of nuclear energy, which she considers clean, since its waste can be disposed of (and I quote): "a million miles away, somewhere!".

OOOOOPS!

********************************************************

My father always told me: "The Devil will teach you how to make a pot, but he will not teach you how to make the lid!". We like culinary proverbs in Bologna and besides, I couldn't think of a more apt analogy for underscoring what I am referring to.

Right here, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a great example of the "Good People" logic, or lack thereof.

Let us NOT underestimate the global threat a handful of such "Good People" represent, or we might be headed for big trouble.

They are extremely dangerous and hard to spot, since they camouflage superbly.

They infiltrate every human community and are almost impossible to distinguish from us.

Once they establish some degree of control over an individual, and usually the most vulnerable ones are infected first, they quickly spread their poison using their victims as a vehicle, eventually overtaking entire communities.

They are, in my view, one of the greatest danger facing humanity today.

They are capable of shameless deception and destruction of human values, but somehow manage to slither away from personal responsibility and succeed in assigning blame to someone else, usually one of their victims.

Sadly, once a victim's mind has been infected the "Good People" bug, the syndrome can take just about any form, thereby defying diagnostic efforts as well as prevention.

Worst of all, there is no cure. Once the bug takes residence in a human host, he or she becomes a carrier  and is no longer capable of personal discernment, independent thinking, logic and reason.

How can we ignore the incongruence in Ms. Lovins' argument? How can she expect us to believe in her vociferous concern for future generations, when, in the same breath, she endorses the spreading of millions of tons of practically indestructible radio-active waste, whose half life could be hundreds of thousands of years?

And where exactly is this "millions of miles away", Ms. Lovins?

Out in the middle of the ocean? In the Gobi Desert? How about on top of Mt. Everest? Or maybe in some underdeveloped country, where it will poison and kill only poor, useless people?

Tell you what, Ms. Palin..... sorry, I meant Ms.Lovins....let's just launch it out of the solar system altogether and let them "greenbrains" worry about it!

Am I the only one who sees through these charades?

Where is the outrage, people?

How can we let these impostors continue to insult and contaminate the human mind with lies, confusion and images of doom?

I think I made my point. Enough ranting, for now, or I'd be indulging in self-righteousness and that has never helped a cause.

I'd love it if some of you took the time to listen to that debate and then got back to me with your take on it.

And, in any case, thank you for reading this piece.

Yours truly,

rma